For All That Have An Opinion on Global Warming.

I am really getting to the point of exhaustion here, and no one seems to understand what it is that I'm saying, so here's the theory I have gathered
from my resources, which includes Whitley Strieber's book The Coming Global Superstorm, and the movie The Day After Tomorrow.

The theory's outline is such as this:

The polar ice caps melt due to rising temperatures, all the fresh water empty into the oceans disrupting the ocean currents, and causing them to fail.
Then the cold arctic air rush down, not stopped by anything, and meet the warm from the south head on, first sprouting many small but devastating
storms that quickly organize into a giant globalsuperstorm that may or may not function like a hurricane...(that really is beside the point).

The point is that the theory brings us to the superstorm, or if not correctly, then to the ocean currents failing, which was the cause for the last
big storm (research showed by Dr. Thompson).

My challenge to you people is to approve or disprove this theory. I will require actual science of course, which is needed in this forum. There are
undoubtedly some flaws in here that I can't pick out by myself, but I require soemone else to point them out.

So even though I have my info from a movie, the book from the movie, and a fictional author who was abducted by aliens, I think that this theory has
something.

My challenge to you people is to approve or disprove this theory. I will require actual science of course, which is needed in this forum. There are
undoubtedly some flaws in here that I can't pick out by myself, but I require soemone else to point them out.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by humanoidcontent]

It is impossible to prove or disprove any theory, the best one can achieve is signifigant evidence for or against a theory...

I don't think global warming is what we want to think it is. I think what we see is a natural cycle of the earth.

As far as The Day After Tomorrow, here's what a meteorologist has to say about fact mirroring fiction:

Like much science fiction, The Day After Tomorrow™ is based on some solid scientific fact. Recent scientific discoveries show that the present
day climate is unusually stable, and that "normal" climate for Earth is the climate of frequent extreme jumps--like a light switch flicking on and
off.

Good post humanoidcontent,
Movies make you sit up and take notice. They make you question the what ifs.
I had thought long and hard on this subject after seeing the day after tomorrow and finally found myself in a tissy and decided to give up. If all
this could happen in a short period of time as did in the movie, we in the U.S. would stand little chance of living through it.
From a personal standpoint may I say that all the theory in the world can never hit the nail on the head. So watch the global weather, flood stages,
temps, and such for signs that may indicate any "day after tomorrow" events.

humanoidcontent: The Day After Tomorrow is based on the Global Superstorm book. Strieber participated heavily in the making of the movie (at least as
much as he could) in order to make people sit up and think. Which they did. Scientists agree that the scenario is very plausible - they disagree on
the time scale, claiming it will take "longer".

I, for one, am watching weather around the world very carefully - if suddenly a storm of that nature occurs, I want to be ready.

One of the reasons that "The Day After Tomorrow" is considered a very bad movie by many meteorologists is that it plays to existing fears of global
warming. But, since there are so many errors in it (especially the time frame) when the global superstorm doesn't happen, a lot of folks are
going to believe that global warming is a hoax, and they will continue to do those very things which contribute to it.

But is there going to be a global warming, and what will happen, and when? Those are the questions we need to look at, not arguing over a
science fiction movie.

If you are a believer in global warming and you're the kind of person who doesn't want to read or hear anything that contradicts your beliefs, then
you probably don't want to read Michael Crichton's latest book State of Fear.

Now of course Crichton is a novelist, but he is also a physician (with an unergraduate degree [Harvard, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa] in
Anthropology) and no one can argue that he isn't knowledgeable in his prvious efforts, including medical issues in Andromeda Strain,
recombinant DNA in Jurassic Park, history in Eaters of the Dead and Timeline, Japanese culture and business practices in
Rising sun, and so on.

I think it'd be fair to say that Crichton's knowledge of science that goes into his books is unsurpassed for a novelist. In State of Fear,
he includes a lot of footnotes, etc. -- guaranteed to make you think, even though such thinking would be uncomfortable to you.

if you want to discuss global warming from as objective a perspective as possible, read Crichton's State of Fear, then we'll talk.

Well I can't say that I have some people's advantages, being only young, I don't know what past weather was like. But I keep watching, ang keep
hoping some people will listen. (So far Bush is playing an excellent role, he should have tried out for the movie!)

And Off the Street, I really do like to hear people say THATS NOT TRUE! But what Crichton is talking about (from what I hear) is more like NWO than
global warming. And I don't want to hear someone tell us that we have no hope and everyone's evil, because what can I do about that? It would kill
my spirit. The exact one that's still talking to people like mwm who couldn't see science if it walked right up and smacked him one on the face.
Entertainment is the best way to get people's attention these days, cause be honest, who reads the paper and gets informed? And worse, who's writing
the paper?

"And Off the Street, I really do like to hear people say THATS NOT TRUE! But what Crichton is talking about (from what I hear) is more like NWO
than global warming."

Yes and no. Crichton uses a story line that, in my opinion (and I've read most of his work) is not up to his standards; his characters are kind of
one-dimensional; and the plot leaves a bit to be desired. If you want good Crichton, there are a lot of his novels that are better -- especially
"Rising Sun".

But if you look at his book as a primer of qhat's happening regarding global warming as well as the perceptions of what's happening -- you will get
valuable information, I believe.

And as far as being young and not experiencing the weather, I can identify with you; I was only a little kid myself during the Great Blizzard of
1881.

The earth is indeed warming up. Where I live in central Ohio there used to be a big Glacier around 10,000 years ago. Today there is just a couple of
puddles of water called the great lakes. So global warming has been happening for a long time and appears to be warming up quicker than in the past.
Will it warm up enough to somehow create a superstorm? I doubt it. It is hard to tell what mother nature will do next. The last 3 years where i live
has been much wetter than normal with more snow and cold then normal. Maybe the warmer it gets the cloudier it will get from the higher oceans that
are cooler from the polar ice cap melting and we will eventually go back into an ice age. I do not think anyone can tell you what will happen since it
is something that has never happened in recorded history. Just my opinion.

cryptorsa, that's a good point. There have been many ice ages in our pre-history, and the the late Pleistocene that you talk about is just the
latest.

What we may be having now could be just another cycle in a 30,000-year epicycle, and in another four or five thousand years (or in the next four or
five hundred) we could see another glaciation episode.

But one thing that a lot of people don't mention when they talk about the possibility of planetary global warming -- think of all the new crop lands
that would be available in Greenland, Canada, and Siberia!

For example, did you know that there was a thriving Norse culture in Greenland until about 500 years ago when just a slight lowering of the
temperature caused a cultural collapse?

Who knows, maybe a two- or three-degree global temperature increase could wipe out much of the already warm lands culture like here in Arizona (and
destroy many of the low-lying landforms), but create entirely new cultures on the Lena river and Novaya Zemyla. And imagine scuba diving among the
coral of the Great Oregon Barrier Reef!

Who knows, maybe a two- or three-degree global temperature increase could wipe out much of the already warm lands culture like here in Arizona (and
destroy many of the low-lying landforms), but create entirely new cultures on the Lena river and Novaya Zemyla. And imagine scuba diving among the
coral of the Great Oregon Barrier Reef!

[edit on 20-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Maybe this is why Hollywood is so scared! Just imagine having to move from the Socialist Republic of California to, like, Utah.

I however would glady trade LA for being able to golf at midnight in Greenland AND have it be 75 degrees outside.

I read Michael Crighton's "State of Fear" and I agree with you regarding the storyline and characters. I think the story is secondary to all the
facts he presents. and that he used this book more as a platform to make a point on global warming.

For those of you who haven't read it, I urge you to at least take a look at the graphs that are in the book as well as the many, and I mean MANY,
references that Mr. Crighton lists that contradict some of the aspects of global warming. I am very environmentally-minded, as is Michael Crighton,
but after reading this book and some of the references he listed, it's clear that we are not being given all the facts by the media. One example is
that everyone keeps talking about Antarctica melting because of the collapsing ice shelves, when in fact, the interior of the continent of Antarctica
is actually getting colder, not warming up. Also, the graphs show that if you look at weather records from individual cities in the U.S., and you
look from 1900 - present, it may show a warming trend, however, if you look at the graph from the time record-keeping started for the city, most of
the records show that the temperature is either steady or declining.

Another interesting thing that he writes about is the fact that the mainstream media rarely used the words "castastrophe", and other "end of the
world" scenarios prior to 1989. The reason for that he sites, is that 1989 is when the Berlin Wall fell, hence the so-called end of communism.
Because of that, they said the government needed something else to cause fear in the general population and the media fell right into their hands.

Now, I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist. What I am saying is that I agree with Mr Crighton in that we need to hear all the facts
before jumping to conclusions.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
The earth is indeed warming up. Where I live in central Ohio there used to be a big Glacier around 10,000 years ago. Today there is just a couple of
puddles of water called the great lakes. So global warming has been happening for a long time and appears to be warming up quicker than in the past.
Will it warm up enough to somehow create a superstorm? I doubt it. It is hard to tell what mother nature will do next. The last 3 years where i live
has been much wetter than normal with more snow and cold then normal. Maybe the warmer it gets the cloudier it will get from the higher oceans that
are cooler from the polar ice cap melting and we will eventually go back into an ice age. I do not think anyone can tell you what will happen since it
is something that has never happened in recorded history. Just my opinion.

I agree completely with you. The key phrase in your post is "recorded history." Scientists take cores from the Greenland icesheet and compare data
to palynology studies from all over the place. The results: the Earth's temperatures have varied wildly throughout prehistory and, yes, we are
warming right now. My question is, "is humanity the cause of this 'global warming'? , and, if so, can we remedy it?" I don't know.

Hey poonchang, since the earth has been warming up since before man had the supposed capability to increase the earths temperatures it his hard to
tell. I guess burning fossil fuels for a couple of centuries may have made a difference and there seems to be some evidence to that effect. I read a
book called the end of oil that talks about the warming of the earth temperatures. The author states that most climate scientists believe that man
made green-house gases have pushed temperatures up by as much as three degrees over the past century. He further states that the last ice age was
triggered by a three degree rise in temperature though it took 5000 years for the temperature to rise those three degrees. He states that the polar
ice caps have melted by 15% causing the ocean to rise by 10 inches. But how can we be sure that man was the cause of the temperature rise, part of it
or all of it. I have heard compelling aurguments from both sides. Maybe as it usually is the truth is somewhere in between.

I am skeptical partly because a few years back a friend came over and started talking about a demonstration he had observed about a vehicle motor that
ran on freon. It was supposedly 99.9% effecient. A few months later my friend said that the inventor had been jailed. A little while later freon was
considered to be one of the caused of ozone depletion and freon was outlawed. Not sure what to make of all of it but it sounds smells fishy to me.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Hey poonchang, since the earth has been warming up since before man had the supposed capability to increase the earths temperatures it his hard to
tell. I guess burning fossil fuels for a couple of centuries may have made a difference and there seems to be some evidence to that effect. I read a
book called the end of oil that talks about the warming of the earth temperatures. The author states that most climate scientists believe that man
made green-house gases have pushed temperatures up by as much as three degrees over the past century. He further states that the last ice age was
triggered by a three degree rise in temperature though it took 5000 years for the temperature to rise those three degrees. He states that the polar
ice caps have melted by 15% causing the ocean to rise by 10 inches. But how can we be sure that man was the cause of the temperature rise, part of it
or all of it. I have heard compelling aurguments from both sides. Maybe as it usually is the truth is somewhere in between.

I am skeptical partly because a few years back a friend came over and started talking about a demonstration he had observed about a vehicle motor that
ran on freon. It was supposedly 99.9% effecient. A few months later my friend said that the inventor had been jailed. A little while later freon was
considered to be one of the caused of ozone depletion and freon was outlawed. Not sure what to make of all of it but it sounds smells fishy to me.

Since the onset of the Holocene (roughly 10kya), temperatures have remained VERY stable, especially when compared to the fluctuations before the onset
of the Holocene. I believe the Earth is warming, but I find it difficult to side with an argument postulating that human activity is the cause. Could
the Earth's temperatures just be "due" to rise right now?

On another note (beware: anecdotal data), I had a friend back in high school (10 years ago) whose father was an inventer. Appearantly, this guy
invented a device that would reduce ALL harmful emmisions from cars, even burning tires. I guess he got sued, or his patent was stole, or something (I
don't remember), by the oil cartel. Does not make sense, I know.

Another friend I had a couple of years back bought a truck (Ford I think) brand spankin' new. It had a big-ass engine but got great gas mileage.
Later, when he took it in for a tune-up, they had to perform some immediate work on it. Since then, it gets the usual crappy gas mileage.

I hate to be one to spout off anecdotal stuff and cry conspiracy theory, but if there was ever a place to do it, this is it. Maybe the technology for
reduced emissions is here already, but the "price isn't right" right now.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
I am skeptical partly because a few years back a friend came over and started talking about a demonstration he had observed about a vehicle motor that
ran on freon. It was supposedly 99.9% effecient. A few months later my friend said that the inventor had been jailed. A little while later freon was
considered to be one of the caused of ozone depletion and freon was outlawed. Not sure what to make of all of it but it sounds smells fishy to me.

Sounds like you might want to start re-thinking where you get you're information. First, I highly doubt the book "The End of Oil" is a scientific
review of global warming. Amazon.com describes it as "The End of Oil is a geologic cautionary tale for a complacent world accustomed to reliable
infusions of cheap energy ....". The use of the word "tale" should give that one away.

Also, it is virtually impossible to get freon to react exothermically (that is, give off energy) - a neccisary item when making an engine work. It is
also easily demonstrated that freon (and other CFC based refrigerants) can cause signifigant ozone damage. The second point sounds kind of iffy as
well.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.